Special Agent Noesner is the chief negotiator with the FBI's
Critical Incident Response Group, Crisis Management Unit, at the
FBI Academy. Dr. Webster, a former member of the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police, heads a private law enforcement consulting firm
in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

When responding to a critical incident involving a hostage
taker or barricaded subject, crisis negotiators generally confront
one of two types of behavior-instrumental or expressive. Instrumental
behavior is characterized by substantive demands and clearly recognizable
objectives that, if attained, will benefit the subject. Negotiators
can best address this goal-directed behavior through the strategies
of bargaining or problem solving.

Expressive behavior, on the other hand, is designed to com-municate
the subject's frustration, outrage, passion, despair, anger, or
other feelings. The actions of a subject who is in an expressive
mode often appear illogical and highly emotional, given the lack
of sub-stantive or goal-oriented demands. Moreover, the critical
incident itself may be of a self-destructive nature. Expressive
behavior stems from the subject's need to ventilate and is best
addressed through a strategy of active listening.

Although these two very different modes of behavior represent
opposite ends of a continuum, subjects often exhibit elements
of both types during an incident. In other words, a subject's
behavior, while predominantly one type or another, may slide along
the continuum between instrumental and expressive, making it difficult
for responding law enforcement personnel to develop a negotiation
strategy.

Still, the majority of critical incidents to which law enforcement
responds involve subjects who are motivated primarily by emotional
needs and exhibit mainly expressive behaviors.1 These incidents
may involve jilted lovers, disgruntled employees or students,
mood-disordered or psychotic subjects, suicidal individuals, or
individuals who, for whatever reason, believe that they or their
beliefs have been threatened or demeaned by society.

Although they may make limited instrumental demands, these
subjects are more concerned with expressing their anger, hurt,
despair, or beliefs of being treated unfairly than they are in
bargaining in a rational manner. They have lost their equilibrium
and are experiencing heightened levels of arousal that interfere
with their ability to function normally.2 While all critical incidents
pose distinct problems, negotiators often find it particularly
difficult to accommodate subjects who act out of emotional rage
and appear to lack a clear sense of purpose. Although expressive
subjects might do a good deal of talking during negotiations,
they generally have difficulty articulating their true needs in
an understandable way.

Therefore, negotiators must be able to guide expressive subjects
into clearly stating the nature of their dilemmas and articulating
their demands so that law enforcement can address them. In recent
years, the FBI's Critical Incident Response Group (CIRG) has adopted
a negotiation technique designed to elicit such information by
providing negotiators with the skills to help expressive subjects
sort out their often-scattered thoughts and feelings. By using
active listening skills, negotiators control the tone of negotiations
while they build the empathy necessary to win subjects' confidence
and to resolve tense situations.

In order to employ these listening skills successfully, negotiators
first must understand the nature of crises. Indeed, when negotiators
arrive at the scene of a critical incident to begin negotiations,
they must remember that the subject is already in the midst of
considerable internal turmoil. To lead the subject out of crisis,
negotiators must appreciate the factors that created the situation
in the first place.

THE NATURE OF CRISES

A crisis overrides an individual's normal psychological and
biological coping mechanisms.3 Several features of critical incidents
account for the overwhelming and bewildering nature of a crisis.

As people grow and develop, they continually meet new demands.
These demands could be intellectual, employment-related, economic,
or rooted in relationships with other people. Individuals meet
these demands and practice resolving them so often that they form
coping mechanisms, or "cognitive maps," to deal with
them. These maps assist people who face a potential problem to
categorize it, determine the resources needed to overcome it,
choose a solution, and set a goal for the problem's resolution.

Occasionally, however, individuals confront situations they
have seldom or never encountered in the past. As a result, they
have not developed adequate coping mechanisms to deal with them.
These crises leave individuals feeling overwhelmed and powerless.
For many people, these crises cause their heightened emotions
to impair their ability to think rationally.

As a consequence of feeling powerless and helpless, individuals
may experience extreme levels of physiological arousal in the
form of anxiety--the natural human response to threat and danger.
This anxiety serves to disrupt further their ability to think
clearly. Consequently, when individuals face a crisis, their increased
levels of arousal interfere with attempts to cope with an already
incomprehensible circumstance.

During situations of crisis, people spontaneously turn to others
for comfort, support, understanding, and protection. Some research
suggests that people possess a biological need for attachment.4
Crises, however, have the potential to disconnect individuals
from necessary sources of support.5 When the cry for attachment
and support is not answered due to others' misunderstanding of,
fear of, anger with, disappointment in, or disagreement with the
individual in crisis, that person feels utterly abandoned.

The absence of support during a crisis represents the loss
of the primary human coping resource. Without the sense of security
provided by others, the troubled individual's already extreme
state of physiological arousal is exacerbated further. As a growing
feeling of despair sets in, the person feels unable to escape
the crisis. When all roads back to equilibrium seem blocked, the
individual's ability to cope becomes overwhelmed.

As every attempt to deal with the perceived threat seemingly
meets with failure, the individual learns to do nothing.6 This
state of "learned helplessness" is characterized by
constricted thinking and an inability to see even the most obvious
solutions. Instead, the individual focuses on moment-to-moment
survival. This shift in thinking only complicates the individual's
situation, serving to undermine the sense of personal competence
and effectiveness while increasing anxiety even more.

BREAKING DOWN DEFENSES

Individuals whose heightened state of anxiety and reduced self-esteem
cause them to react recklessly to crisis situations usually come
in contact with law enforcement. For responding negotiators, crisis
intervention generally involves an intense effort, within a relatively
short period of time, to lower physiological arousal and return
subjects to equilibrium, or at least to a more normal functional
level. Negotiators can help subjects in crisis return to a more
rational state by providing them with support during a time of
confusion. Active listening represents a powerful tool to stimulate
positive change in others.

Despite the popular notion that listening is a passive behavior,
abundant clinical evidence and research suggest that active listening
is an effective way to induce behavioral change in others.7 When
listened to by others, individuals tend to listen to themselves
more carefully and to evaluate and clarify their own thoughts
and feelings. In addition, they tend to become better problem
solvers, growing less defensive and oppositional and more accepting
of other points of view. Subjects who are met with an empathetic
ear also become less fearful of being criticized and grow more
inclined to adopt a realistic appraisal of their own position.

Through the course of their development, people construct a
set of beliefs. In a very general sense, the interaction between
beliefs related to self and those related to the world determine
an individual's behavior in any situation.8 However, viewpoints
related to self-that is, a person's self-image-represent the most
cherished and vital components in the belief system.

Accordingly,mpeoplemfeel threatened by any direct attempt by
others to challenge or change their self-images. These perceived
threats cause subjects in crisis to defend even more strongly
their image of themselves and deny any challenges to it. Objective
observers might view these efforts as constricted thinking and
rigid behavior. To subjects in crisis, however, they represent
the only avenues open to preserve a sense of themselves amidst
the chaos in their lives. Because active listening poses no threat
to an individual's self-image, it can help a subject become less
defensive. Thus, active listening creates fertile ground for negotiation
and, eventually, change.

If negotiators hope to change a subject's behavior-that is,
restore the individual's equilibrium and increase the subject's
ability to think more clearly and act less violently--they must
remove themselves as threats. As long as the subject perceives
the atmosphere as threatening, no meaningful communication can
take place. Without communication, negotiators cannot build the
rapport necessary to bring about behavioral change in the subject.

Accordingly, negotiators must avoid intimidating, demeaning,
lecturing, criticizing, and evaluating subjects. They must create
an atmosphere of empathy and respect. Only in this climate will
subjects feel safe enough to consider alternate perspectives and
become receptive to positive suggestions from negotiators. By
employing active listening skills, negotiators help create an
environment for positive change.

ACTIVE LISTENING SKILLS

In recent years, the FBI and a growing number of law enforcement
agencies have used active listening to resolve volatile confrontations
successfully. These positive results have led the FBI to incorporate
and emphasize active listening skills in its crisis negotiation
training. The following seven techniques constitute the core elements
of the active listening approach the FBI teaches. Together, these
techniques provide a framework for negotiators to respond to the
immediate emotional needs of expressive subjects, clearing the
way for behavioral changes that must occur before negotiators
can resolve critical incidents.

Minimal Encouragements

During negotiations with a subject, negotiators must demonstrate
that they are listening attentively and are focused on the subject's
words. Negotiators can convey these qualities either through body
language or brief verbal replies that relate interest and concern.
The responses need not be lengthy. By giving occasional, brief,
and well-timed vocal replies, negotiators demonstrate that they
are following what the subject says. Even relatively simple phrases,
such as "yes," "O.K.," or "I see,"
effectively convey that a negotiator is paying attention to the
subject. These responses will encourage the subject to continue
talking and gradually relinquish more control of the situation
to the negotiator.

Paraphrasing

Paraphrasing consists of ne-gotiators' repeating in their own
words the meaning of subjects' messages back to them. This shows
that negotiators are not only listening but also understanding
what the subject is conveying.

For example, the subject might say, "What's the use in
trying to go on anymore. I've lost my job of 18 years, my wife
has left me for good, I have no money and no friends. I'd be better
off dead." In response, the negotiator might express understanding
by paraphrasing the subject's words, "You've lost your job
and your wife, there is no one to turn to, and you're not sure
if you want to go on living."

Emotion Labeling

Because expressive subjects operate from an almost purely emotional
framework, negotiators must address the emotional di-mensions
of a crisis as the subject sees them. Emotion labeling allows
negotiators to attach a tentative label to the feelings expressed
or implied by the subject's words and actions. Such labeling shows
that negotiators are paying attention to the emotional aspects
of what the subject is conveying. When used effectively, emotion
labeling becomes one of the most powerful skills available to
negotiators because it helps them identify the issues and feelings
that drive the subject's behavior.

A negotiator might say, "You sound as though you are so
angry over being fired from your job that you want to make your
supervisor suffer for what happened." In response, a subject
might agree with the negotiator's statement and thereby validate
the assessment. Or, the subject could modify or correct the assessment:
"Yes, I'm angry, but I don't want to hurt anyone. I just
want my job back." Either way, negotiators have learned something
important about the subject's emotions, needs, and contemplated
plans.

Mirroring

By mirroring, negotiators repeat only the last words or main
idea of the subject's message. It serves as both an attending
and listening technique, as it indicates both interest and understanding.
For example, a subject may declare, "I'm sick and tired of
being pushed around," to which the negotiator can respond,
"Feel pushed, huh?"

Mirroring can be especially helpful in the early stages of
a crisis, as negotiators attempt to es-tablish a nonconfrontational
presence, gain initial intelligence, and begin to build rapport.
This technique allows negotiators to follow verbally wherever
the subject leads the conversation. Consequently, negotiators
learn valuable information about the circumstances surrounding
the incident, while they provide the subject an opportunity to
vent.

This technique also frees negotiators from the pressure of
constantly directing the conversation. Under stress, negotiators
may find they are unsure of how to respond to the subject. Mirroring
enables a negotiator to be a full partner in the conversational
dance without having to lead. Using this skill also helps negotia-tors
avoid asking questions interrogation-style, which blocks rapport
building.

Open-ended Questions

By using open-ended questions, negotiators stimulate the subject
to talk. Negotiators should avoid asking "why" questions,
which could imply interrogation. When the subject speaks, negotiators
gain greater insight into the subject's intent. Effective negotiations
focus on learning what the subject thinks and feels. If negotiators
do most of the talking, they decrease the opportunities to learn
about the subject. Additional examples of effective open-ended
questions include, "Can you tell me more about that?"
"I didn't understand what you just said; could you help me
better understand by explaining that further?" and "Could
you tell me more about what happened to you today?"

"I" Messages

By using "I" messages, a negotiator ostensibly sheds
the negotiator role and acts as any other person might in response
to the subject's actions. In an unprovocative way, negotiators
express how they feel when the subject does or says certain things.

For instance, a negotiator might say, "We have been talking
for several hours, and I feel frustrated that we haven't been
able to come to an agreement." This technique also serves
as an effective response when the subject verbally attacks the
negotiator, who can respond, "I feel frustrated when you
scream at me because I am trying to help you."

While employing this skill--and all active listening techniques--negotiators
must avoid being pulled into an argument or trading personal attacks
with a subject. An argumentative, sarcastic, or hostile tone could
reinforce the subject's already negative view of law enforcement
and cause the subject to rationalize increased resistance due
to a lack of perceived concern on the part of the police. Use
of "I" messages serves to personalize the negotiator.
This helps to move the negotiator beyond the role of a police
officer trying to manipulate the subject into surrendering.

Effective Pauses

By deliberately using pauses, negotiators can harness the power
of silence for effect at appropriate times. People tend to speak
to fill spaces in a conversation. Therefore, negotiators should,
on occasion, consciously create a space or void that will encourage
the subject to speak and, in the process, provide additional information
that may help negotiators resolve the situation.

Silence also is an effective response when subjects engage
in highly charged emotional outbursts. When they fail to elicit
a verbal response, subjects often calm down to verify that negotiators
are still listening. Eventually, even the most emotionally overwrought
subjects will find it difficult to sustain a one-sided argument,
and they again will return to meaningful dialogue with negotiators.
Thus, by remaining silent at the right times, negotiators actually
can move the overall negotiation process forward.

NEGOTIATION TOOLS

In combination, active listening skills can help negotiators
demonstrate that the negotiation team sincerely wants to help
the subject out of a difficult situation. No set formula exists
for using these skills, however. The application of some or all
of the skills should depend upon the specifics of the situation
confronting negotiators.

Negotiators should look at these skills as tools to be applied
as deemed appropriate during a crisis situation. Like all tools,
they should be used only to perform the jobs for which they are
intended.

THE CHANGE PROCESS

The application of active listening skills helps to create
an empathic relationship between negotiators and the subject.
Demonstrating this empathy tends to build rapport and, in time,
change the subject's behavior. This approach to crisis intervention
represents an effort over a relatively short period of time to
stabilize emotions and restore the subject's ability to think
more rationally.

However, when dealing with expressive subjects, negotiators
should avoid the standard law enforcement inclination to resolve
the problem as rapidly as possible. Even the most well-orchestrated
negotiations take time.

People tend to listen to and follow the advice of individuals
who have influence over them. Negotiators generally achieve peaceful
resolutions only after they demonstrate their desire to be nonjudgmental,
nonthreatening, and understanding of the subject's feelings. By
projecting that understanding, negotiators show empathy and lead
the subject to perceive them, not as the enemy, but as concerned
individuals who want to help.

Applying active listening skills and showing empathy establish
a degree of rapport between negotiators and subjects that can
lead to the discussion of nonviolent alternatives to resolve incidents.
The rapport creates an environment where negotiators can suggest
various alternatives that the subject previously could not see
or would not consider.

Subjects who turn to negotiators and say, "I'm so confused
and scared. What should I do to get out of this situation?"
have reached a point where, due to the rapport-building efforts
of negotiators, they are ready to accept advice on the best way
to resolve the situation. Such a query provides an opening that
negotiators can use to influence the actions of the subject by
suggesting alternatives and offering solutions.

CONCLUSION

Crisis negotiators must respond to critical incidents involving
individuals who display a variety of behavioral traits. However,
during the majority of critical incidents, negotiators confront
subjects who manifest predominantly expressive behavior.

Expressive subjects are in a state of crisis that blocks their
normal coping mechanisms for handling stress. Their thinking becomes
highly constricted and disorganized, making it difficult for them
to deal logically with their problems and exercise good judgment.
Skilled and patient negotiators can significantly influence such
a subject's behavior by being supportive and nonconfrontational.

By applying active listening skills, negotiators demonstrate
that they are not a threat to the sub- ject and that their goal
is to help rather than harm. When negotiators demonstrate empathy
and understanding, they build rapport, which, in turn, enables
them to influence the subject's actions by providing nonviolent
problem-solving alternatives. In short, by demonstrating support
and empathy, negotiators often can talk an expressive subject
into surrendering largely by listening.